The Biden-Harris Justice Department is wrong in claiming that federal law bars Virginia and other states from removing aliens from their voter rolls. And if the law DOJ cites is misinterpreted by a court to agree with the agency’s erroneous claim, then the law likely would be unconstitutional. The Justice Department sued Virginia after it removed the names of 6,303 aliens and Alabama after it moved 3,251 aliens to an “inactive” list. Keep in mind that it’s a felony under several federal statutes for an alien to claim fraudulently to be a citizen so he or she may register to vote or vote in U.S. elections, including 18 U.S.C. §§ 611, 911, and 1015(f). The Justice Department has a duty to enforce these statutes, something the agency apparently has no interest in doing under President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris. The federal voter registration form established by the National Voter Registration Act, or NVRA, not only asks applicants whether they are U.S. citizens, it requires them to attest under penalty of perjury that they are citizens. The form has a strict warning that if the would-be voter provides false information, he or she may “be fined, imprisoned, or (if not a U.S. citizen) deported from or refused entry to the United States.” However, the Justice Department claims that Virginia and Alabama violated the law’s 90-day preelection deadline for “systematic” list maintenance programs. This, according to the DOJ led by Attorney General Merrick Garland, prevents all “systematic” removals from a voter registration list within 90 days of an election. What the Justice Department fails to point out is that the 90-day deadline is in the second part of a section of the National Voter Registration Act that deals only with the removal of the names of registered voters who have moved.  The first part outlines the rule for removing the names of individuals who have moved to a different residence either within the state or another state. The second part then applies the 90-day deadline for such removals. That section of the law also says that the deadline doesn’t apply to “correction of registration records” or to removal of names of voters who have requested it or who have died or become ineligible due to a criminal conviction or mental incapacity.  The common factor in all of those exceptions is that each deals with individuals who were eligible to vote when they registered but subsequently became ineligible.  The 90-day deadline obviously doesn’t apply to an alien who wasn’t eligible to register to vote in the first place and, in fact, was committing a felony violation of federal criminal law by registering.  Critics, including the Justice Department, have claimed that those exceptions are the “exclusive” reasons that a state may remove the names of registered individuals from the voter rolls. In 2012, in Arcia v. Detzner, a federal case out of the Southern District of Florida, Judge William Zloch said that claim would “produce an absurd result.” Zloch ruled that would mean a state couldn’t “remove from its voting rolls minors, fictitious individuals, individuals who misrepresent their residence in the state, and non-citizens.”  The 90-day deadline, the judge decided, “simply does not apply to an improperly registered noncitizen.” In another 2012 federal case, U.S. v. Florida, Judge Robert Hinkle of the Northern District of Florida concluded that Congress drafted these provisions of the law to deal with the removal of names of registered voters “on grounds that typically arise after an initial proper registration.” The provisions don’t apply to “revocation of an improperly granted registration of a noncitizen,” Hinkle ruled. In fact, the judge wrote, “the NVRA does not require a state to allow a noncitizen to vote just because the state did not catch the error more than 90 days in advance.” Moreover, the Justice Department is also wrong in claiming that the law bars all “systematic” removals of voters’ names.  As Hinkle ruled, during the 90-day period “a state may pursue a program to systematically remove registrants on request or based on a criminal conviction, mental incapacity, or death but not based on a change of residence.”  What “matters here,” the federal judge added, “is this: none of this applies to removing noncitizens who were never properly registered in the first place.”  It is true that in a deeply flawed, cursory analysis, a divided panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the Southern District of Florida decision and held that the 90-day deadline did apply to the removal of aliens’ names from voter rolls.  But Florida didn’t appeal this obviously wrong decision by two appeals court judges to the entire 11th Circuit or to the Supreme Court. The 11th Circuit panel’s decision not only is wrong based on the text of the statute, but any interpretation of the National Voter Registration Act that would force a state to allow an ineligible alien who violated criminal law by registering to remain registered so he may cast a ballot in an upcoming election likely would render the law unconstitutional. In 2019, in Bellitto v. Snipes, another case arising out of Florida, a different 11th Circuit panel held that in applying the NVRA, “Congress would not have mandated that the state register” an individual who “is not eligible to vote.” If the NVRA does not require a state to register an ineligible alien to vote, it cannot be construed to require a state to maintain and continue the registration of an ineligible alien. Alabama and Virginia should fight the Justice Department and be willing to take these cases all the way to the Supreme Court. Maintaining the security and integrity of the American election process and protecting voters against foreign interference that voids their votes requires no less. Read Hans von Spakovsky’s complete Legal Memorandum: “The National Voter Registration Act Does Not Prevent States From Removing Aliens from Voter Registration Rolls at Any Time.” The post DOJ Wrong: Federal Law Doesn’t Prevent States From Removing Aliens From Voter Rolls appeared first on The Daily Signal.

High inflation could soon make a comeback across the American economy. That’s because a combination of soaring demand for electricity and artificially constricted supply has laid the foundations for steadily increasing electricity prices. Not only do people rely on electricity, but it’s an essential component of all commerce in the economy. As such, a healthy economy requires a change in direction in energy policy. The inflation rate measures the average annual percentage increase in the consumer price index. The CPI is an index measuring changes in prices of a typical basket of goods over time. Items in the basket include typical purchases, such as housing, food, energy, insurance, clothing, and appliances. These items are weighted for relative importance, and among the most important is electricity. Electricity bills are rising because of the required adoption of renewable energy mandates, carbon emission-reduction goals, and cap-and-trade schemes, as can be seen in this table, primarily in states with Democratic leadership. States that have required renewables, particularly wind and solar energy, to be used in electricity production often experience higher electricity costs due to the regulatory burdens placed on traditional energy sources, such as natural gas and coal. For instance, several states have limited the construction of natural gas infrastructure or restricted access to abundant natural gas resources, exacerbating energy costs for their residents and their neighbors. At the same time, incentives for clean energy in the so-called Inflation Reduction Act discourage investment in power plants fired by natural gas or coal that provide affordable and reliable baseload power. People are all too familiar with rising residential electricity bills and their consequences for inflation rates. It’s obvious that all businesses have to pay for electricity, too. What’s not as obvious is that electricity is a crucial input into the production of virtually everything that is produced, bought, and sold. The exact weight for electricity in the CPI is 2.43%. That means that if electricity prices were to double, holding every other input constant, electricity prices alone would cause a one-time increase in the inflation rate by about 2.5%. Added to existing inflation, such an increase would spell hard times for Americans. The latest numbers, for September 2024, show the CPI rose by 2.45% over the prior year. By adding a further 2.5% from a doubling of electricity prices, the overall inflation rate would jump to 5%. This is a conservative estimate, however, because electricity is a vital component of other goods and services. An increase in electricity prices would also cause price increases of those other goods. When electricity prices rise, it creates a domino effect. Production and transportation costs rise, prices of goods rise, and those price hikes in turn increase the CPI. The effect of higher electricity prices is particularly important in the manufacturing sector. Manufacturing companies use energy-intensive processes, making them extremely vulnerable to elevated electricity prices. Higher electricity prices mean higher prices for manufactured goods, along with lower competitiveness. One example of the damage done by higher electricity prices is Germany, where companies are relocating due to higher energy prices caused by the closure of nuclear power plants and the cutoff from Russian natural gas. In an annual survey of 3,300 German companies, performed annually since 2012, the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry found that 40% of companies were considering relocating or reducing production due to high electricity prices. According to Association of German Chambers of Commerce and Industry Deputy Managing Director Achim Dercks, “The trust of the German economy in energy policy is severely damaged. So far, the government has failed to provide companies with a perspective for a reliable and affordable energy supply.” A doubling of electricity prices could produce a rise in inflation well above 5% and drive jobs offshore. This would fall hardest on America’s poor but would affect everyone. Policymakers need to examine their focus on promotion of renewable energy and consider a change in policy direction. The post How Rising Electricity Prices Will Reignite Inflation appeared first on The Daily Signal.

There’s a lot at stake Nov. 5. In 10 states, the lives of unborn children—and women’s health and safety—are on the ballot. These measures, if passed, would enshrine abortion as a fundamental right in state constitutions. That means state legislatures essentially would be blocked from meaningfully protecting women and unborn children from abortion. That means no protection for babies with beating hearts. Say goodbye to commonsense health and safety regulations for abortion facilities. Vague definitions for “viability” mean there no longer will be strong protections against late-term abortion. The measures also could open the door to requiring taxpayer funding for elective abortion procedures. Here’s what you need to know about where abortion is on the Nov. 5 ballot and what it could mean for these states if pro-abortion activists get their way. Pro-Abortion States: Overview Colorado, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, and New York all have ballot measures to protect abortion in their state constitutions. In these five states, there are already few—if any—restrictions on abortion. Right now, Colorado has no gestational restrictions and a right to abortion already is protected by statute. If voters approve it, the Colorado ballot measure would enshrine a right to abortion in the state Constitution and repeal a previous ballot initiative prohibiting funding for abortion in health insurance plans and state Medicaid funds. Right now, Maryland has broad health exceptions for late-term abortion and a right to abortion already is protected by statute. If approved by voters, the ballot measure would enshrine a right to abortion in the Maryland Constitution. Right now, Montana allows late-term abortions if a woman’s life is in danger. Previous court decisions have found that the Montana Constitution protects a right to abortion via a right to privacy. This largely has prevented the state Legislature from passing additional pro-life policies. If voters approve it, the ballot measure would explicitly add a right to abortion to the Montana Constitution and limit the state’s ability to protect unborn children after viability. Right now, Nevada has broad health exceptions for late-term abortion. If approved by voters, the ballot measure there would enshrine a right to abortion in the state Constitution—maybe. In Nevada, ballot initiatives must be voted on twice in order to amend the state Constitution. If a majority of voters approve the initiative, it will go on the 2026 ballot and have to be approved again. Right now, New York has broad health exceptions for late-term abortions. The ballot measure before voters would expand the state’s “Equal Rights Amendment” antidiscrimination protections, including in the context of abortion. Proponents hope the measure will be a “bulwark against any future efforts” to enact pro-life laws in New York. Pro-Life States: Overview Voters in Arizona, Florida, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota also will decide ballot initiatives that propose to enshrine unrestricted abortion into their constitutions. Nebraska also will offer voters a separate option that proposes to protect unborn children in the second and third trimesters of pregnancy. Arizona currently protects unborn children after 15 weeks’ gestation, with exceptions for a life-threatening medical emergency. If voters approve it, the ballot measure would enshrine a right to abortion up to viability in the Arizona Constitution. Nebraska currently protects unborn children after 12 weeks’ gestation, with exceptions for sexual assault, incest, and to preserve a woman’s life. If approved, a pro-abortion ballot measure would enshrine a right to abortion up to viability in the Nebraska Constitution. Nebraska also has a dueling pro-life measure on the ballot. If approved, the state Constitution would be amended to align with current law. Unborn children would be protected from abortion in the second and third trimesters, with exceptions for a medical emergency, sexual assault, or incest. Florida currently protects unborn children after a heartbeat can be detected (roughly six weeks’ gestation), with exceptions for rape, incest, and human trafficking, and to preserve a woman’s life. If voters approve it, the pro-abortion ballot measure would enshrine a right to abortion up to viability in the Florida Constitution. Missouri currently protects unborn children from conception with an exception to preserve a woman’s life. If approved, the ballot measure would enshrine a fundamental right to abortion in the Missouri Constitution and allow only for limited protections after viability. South Dakota currently protects unborn children from conception with an exception to preserve a woman’s life. If approved, the ballot measure would enshrine a right to abortion in the first trimester and allow only limited protections in the second and third trimester. A Trojan Horse for Abortion Up to Birth, Paid for by You Don’t be fooled by language in ballot initiatives that suggests, if voters approve, abortion would be prohibited after viability. Activists are sounding the alarm that these deceptively worded measures are much more sinister. When you dig into the details, terms such as health and viability are defined vaguely. An abortionist’s self-certification that a woman’s health is at risk, or that a baby can’t survive outside the womb, is nowhere near enough legal protection. Legally enshrining the falsehood that abortion is a “fundamental” right opens the door to taxpayer-funded elective abortions. In fact, we’ve seen the pro-abortion crowd make precisely this argument in Michigan. In 2022, Michigan voters approved Proposition 3, which enshrined a right to abortion in the state Constitution. As a result, abortion activists quickly sued to undo the state’s 24-hour reflection period, informed consent requirements, and a provision that only licensed physicians perform abortion. But that’s not all. Now pro-abortion activists also are suing to overturn a decades-old law against taxpayer dollars being used to pay for elective abortions. We see the same playbook in Ohio. In 2023, voters decided to enshrine a right to abortion in the Ohio Constitution. Now pro-abortion activists are suing to repeal policies such as the 24-hour reflection period, requirements that only physicians prescribe abortion pills, and a prohibition on dangerous, do-it-yourself abortion with risky pills (the same DIY pills that recently claimed the lives of two women in Georgia). These pro-abortion ballot measures also make it more difficult for states to enforce critically important safety measures. Sweeping language means that, if approved by voters, abortion proponents can turn around and argue that basic safeguards and regulations for abortion clinics infringe or impede an individual’s ability to get an abortion. Of course, many voters don’t realize just how radical and expansive these ballot measures are. That’s by design. After all, most Americans don’t support abortion through all nine months of pregnancy, paid for by taxpayers. In South Dakota, for example, pro-abortion activists have been accused of misleading voters about the scope of the initiative to convince people to sign a petition to put the pro-abortion measure on the ballot. Pro-life activists say abortion proponents in South Dakota have resorted to doxing and other intimidation tactics against pro-lifers who try to tell voters the truth about the radical proposition. In June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court rightly overturned Roe v. Wade and 50 years of court-sanctioned abortion on-demand. Since then, many states have made great strides to protect women and unborn children from abortion. But pro-abortion forces are energized and well-funded. Let’s hope that Michigan and Ohio will serve as a warning as voters head to the polls, whether early or on Election Day. Because when the abortion industry sinks its claws into pro-abortion initiatives, voters can end up with far more radical policies than they meant to vote for. The post Life Is on the Ballot in These States. Here’s What You Need to Know About Abortion-on-Demand Measures. appeared first on The Daily Signal.

According to a recent poll, fully 75% of Hispanic voters think the country is on the wrong track. Even among self-identified Hispanic Democrats, 63% of those polled held that view.  The survey—conducted online by Public Opinion Strategies for Americans for Prosperity, a libertarian conservative political advocacy group—found that Hispanics, by margins of 90% or more, want to keep the current tax rate and are opposed to increasing it.  The LIBRE Initiative, an Albuquerque, New Mexico-based organization aimed at educating and empowering Hispanic Americans, analyzed the poll’s findings on what 300 Hispanic voters thought about economic issues, such as the economy, taxes, government spending, and the cost of living.   Among the key findings:  80% of Latino voters say their taxes are too high.  80% of them say it’s a bad time to increase taxes.  Of the tax cuts in 2017, a plurality, 44%, of Hispanic voters thought cutting taxes for American families did the most to grow the economy. Sixteen percent cited increasing the standard tax deduction, and another 16% cited cutting global business taxes to enable America to better compete with China.  The survey, conducted online from Sept. 5 to 11 but released Friday, had a margin of error of plus or minus 6.45 percentage points.  At the end of 2025, a series of tax cuts is set to expire. If the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act is not renewed by Congress, taxes will increase for 62% of American households in 2026, reducing take-home pay for Hispanics and non-Hispanics alike.  The LIBRE Initiative calculated that a joint-filer Hispanic household with two children that makes $65,540, the median income for Hispanic households in 2023, would see a tax increase of about $1,242.70. Their take-home pay would drop by 2.04%.   In a statement, Jose Mallea, the CEO of the LIBRE Initiative, said many Latino families are “feeling the squeeze.”  “This poll confirms what we’ve been hearing in communities across the country: Americans want leaders to focus on pro-growth policies, protect hard-earned incomes, and prevent tax hikes that would make life even more expensive,” he said. “Congress must act before it’s too late.”  The post ‘FEELING THE SQUEEZE’: Most Hispanics Say Country’s on Wrong Track, Taxes Are Too High appeared first on The Daily Signal.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. After three years, Meta’s apps will once again include facial recognition (this is currently in the testing phase). The giant is “selling” the move to its users as a way to fight scammers and make account recovery easier. The feature was abandoned because of widespread criticism of this tech, but Facebook and Instagram users can now expect to have it back on their apps. The first scenario involves deploying facial recognition to remove what is known as celeb-bait ads, which use photos of public figures to get users to visit scam websites. Meta said that if it suspects this is happening, faces in the ad will be compared to the public figure’s Facebook and Instagram profile photos using facial recognition. For now, the feature is applied to a group of celebrities and public figures, on an “opt-out” basis. The company also revealed that since it is happening in real-time, the process is “faster and more accurate” than when done manually. And now, onto “ordinary people.” The second test involves getting the apps’ users to take video selfies and upload them to Meta. Once again, facial recognition will be used to match these to people’s profile photos, this time in order to speed up the account recovery process. Meta is clearly counting on the “convenience factor” to persuade users that subjecting themselves to facial recognition carried out by a tech juggernaut is a good idea. Another promise is that the process will help when accounts are believed to be compromised by hackers logging in with stolen credentials. The inevitable question is, what happens to this sensitive personal biometric data, especially once in the hands of Meta? The company said it will not use it for any other purposes, that it will be encrypted, and “immediately” deleted once a comparison has been made. While Meta stated that public figures will be automatically enrolled but can opt out, it isn’t explicitly said that for other users facial recognition will be an opt-in, although a post on the company blog says that the video selfie verification “expands on the options for people to regain account access.” Left out of the new scheme for now, due to obvious legal reasons, are Illinois and Texas, but also the UK and the EU. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Meta Brings Back Face Scanning appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Cookies Aren’t Dead Yet: Google’s New Plan To Keep You Tracked All Over the Internet appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The authorities – and legacy media – in the UK are trying to deploy, and are promoting a number of initiatives that have an even more expansive forms of mass surveillance as one of their common denominators. Health Secretary Wes Streeting has declared that the National Health Service (NHS) will have to be “turned on its head” in order to be “saved” – and the Labour government has prepared a 10-year-plan to get this done. Developing a digital health ID, referred to as a “single patient record” on the NHS app containing “all information” is one of the changes that will be proposed during the upcoming “national conversation.” Another the current authorities aim for is not to build more hospitals, equip them better, train and employ more staff – as one might expect – but to get as many people to monitor their own health at home, by giving them devices tracking some health parameters, like blood pressure and glucose. The plan is to make even recovering cancer patients track that recovery themselves. And to achieve it, millions of people will get smart watches and other wearable tech. “Moving more care from hospitals to the community,” is how those behind the plan describe it. Other than announcing that the NHS is “broken,” “in a critical condition,” etc., and therefore in need of being “saved,” Streeting distinguished himself recently by pushing for things like giving obese unemployed persons weight loss drugs “to help them get back to work.” But Streeting’s not the only one apparently alarmed by the state of the NHS – or the only one trying to use the service’s infrastructure and reach to achieve other goals. The Observer Economics Editor Phillip Inman has penned a piece calling for mass government surveillance, where the NHS is a potential “testbed for a national ID card.” Other ideas Inman supports concerning highly invasive monitoring methods include taxing zero-emission vehicles via “satellite surveillance.” Inman advises Streeting to make sure “everyone” has the NHS app on their phone. “If UK households offer their information to the NHS in the way they do to Google et al, health service provision could be cheaper and more effective,” writes the Observer editor. The cynical implication that people “offer” their data to Big Tech – while in reality most are genuinely unaware of the extent of Big Tech’s data harvesting – aside, but Inman has more thoughts about the usefulness of the NHS. “The health service could be a testbed for a national ID card that allows for the digitization of more areas of government, reducing costs and tackling fraud,” he writes. If you're tired of censorship and dystopian threats against civil liberties, subscribe to Reclaim The Net. The post Tracking Health or Tracking You? The UK’s Expanding Health Surveillance appeared first on Reclaim The Net.

Kamala Harris' Unhinged Speech; UPDATE: Trump Responds

Exhausted: New Harris/Forbes Poll Puts Kamala Down Eight In Battleground States

Nate Silver: It's a 50-50 Race but My Gut Says Trump